Minnesota Supreme Court, 1875

Gray v. Bullard

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 20, 1875 · Berry

22 Minn. 278; 1875 Minn. LEXIS 77 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Miner & Barto, for appellant., Knute Nelson, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1919, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Howe v. Gray (Minn. 1919)
Ferguson v. Hogan (Minn. 1878)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J.

This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, upon trial before whom judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed, upon questions of law alone, to the district court, where the judgment of the justice was affirmed. From the judgment of *279affirmance defendant appeals to this court. The action was in the nature of trespass de bonis asportatis, and it appears from the proceedings before the justice that in several instances the plaintiff was permitted, against the objection of defendant, to show special damages resulting from the trespass complained of, as, for instance, the expense to which he was put in recovering the possession of the property. As the plaintiff’s complaint contained no allegations of special damages, the evidence received in proof thereof was clearly irrelevant, and, the defendant having objected to it on that ground, it was error to receive it. As for this reason the judgment of the district court must be reversed, and as the effect of the reversal is to finally dispose of the present action, it is unnecessary to consider several other alleged and apparent errors, which are pointed out by the defendant, in the proceedings before the justice.

Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.